The place I'm at runs IE 6.0. I think it's due to user inertia and resistance that it doesn't get switched over to Firefox. What I'd like to see is a version of Firefox that emulates the visual appearance and workings of the IE 6.0 interface (down to the title bar, icons, etc.), but under the hood and all the rendering is really being done by the latest FF. Updates would just go in automatically with no user intervention.
Seems simple enough, and there are some themes/skins for FF that purport to do this, but they don't go far enough, or aren't polished. They end up looking a little crufty (for instance, they don't get rid of the structure of the forward/back buttons in the latest FF).
If somebody came out with a seamless "sheep in wolf's clothing" solution for IE 6.0 -> FF, it would be a lot easier to get users to adopt it. Does that help wider FF adoption? No, but I think that's a separate issue from pure user "acceptance."
Perhaps we'd get some footage of what the so-called Minutemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Project) are up to. That might be enough to expose the group as a bunch of gun-toting racist yokels.
Do what my friends and I did... I set up a cgi script called CGIProxy (http://www.jmarshall.com/tools/cgiproxy/) on a secure Apache web server I have, and invited my friends to use it to do any web surfing they don't want logged at an ISP.
Of course, the traffic flowing off the final jumping off point (my web server) is being logged, but if enough people use it, that may obfuscate who is actually using the service. And if some jackbooted thugs show up to interrogate me about who's been using my 'service' or look at my logs (I don't keep logs on the script anyway), they will have their work cut out for them. I have nothing to lose taking on these fools (AG on down), and welcome the day I can push back on their idiocy.
Is search really the great big frontier to be conquered? Is there really any gold behind that rush? Man, what am I missing here?
I rarely use Google anymore for searching. Why waste time sifting through a bunch of garbage links when organized info with an excellent set of links awaits me at Wikipedia? A small handful of links (mlb.com for baseball feeds, Bomis for babes, cnn.com for 'real' news, aolchat app to talk to friends, expedia for travel, etc.) can keep one busy with their interests and pastimes for a LONG time.
Google search means something for people who are actively trying to extract info from the web: the intellectually adventurous, the technologically "elite." Outside of/. types, the AOLers, MSNers, and Yahoo!ers get a page of info-tainment barf whenever they log on, and are handed everything they need to waste their time online. It's the junk food that's specially tailored for the sweet spot of popular culture -- who's having whose baby, who won last night's game, etc. These are people whose lives don't revolve around computers, and for whom Google doesn't really mean all that much.
I'm getting around to my point, which is: who decided SEARCH was the holy grail of the internet? How did Micro$oft get so obsessed with the idea that SEARCH is the must-have feather in their cap? SEARCH is the app for finding the niches that aren't already covered by a mainstream website, for people who have the time to waste. Even Google has moved off search to produce apps for people who have better things to do with their leisure -- like getting comprehensive news digests, using state-of-the-art web-based email, and getting best-of-breed driving directions.
What a waste of time for Microsoft to try building a contraption that trolls the Internet sewer better than what's already out there. I don't see what's to be gained trying to refine a 10-year-old idea. They'd attract more attention in the real world building the world's best online casino, or coming up with (gasp!) something new.
Run a 27 line Python script, and boom, you're looking at a working 3d engine. It's fast, too, probably because the heavy lifting is being done in the Ogre runtime binaries.
For developing and prototyping, there's no time wasted (re)compiling changes; tweak some Python and away you go. And there's no reason the code or scene objects can't be tweaked while the engine is running, perhaps by means of a some sort of IPC, whether it's via a telnet/socket-type connection, or an XML-RPC daemon process, or whatever. Some people have even worked up demo on-screen overlays akin to the Quake console.
I'm looking forward to the day I can interact with a 3D environment and manipulate 3D objects with the same immediacy I'm accustomed to manipulating data in the Python interactive prompt. Heck, I'd even learn Smalltalk if they plugged Ogre directly into something like Squeak. But for now, Python + Ogre (PyOgre) seems to show a lot of promise.
Damn, who could have guessed that the most laughable concept from "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" -- the hero breaks Martian rocks apart to get breathable air -- is practically true?
Your points are excellent, and the brief aside you had about the Chinese considering sacrificing some individuals for the betterment of the larger group struck me especially.
What if, the Chinese altered their One Child Per Couple policy, such that, if a couple exceeded the one child they're permitted, the couple could opt that their "extra" children be sent into space for colonizing another world, instead of automatically being killed?
Perhaps, a couple might find both options repugnant, but at least the colonization option would allow a couple's verboten offspring the chance to generate some value for themselves and for the community at large. And they might consider the colonization option slightly more ethically palatable.
I don't understand - openssl 0.9.6b not upgraded?
on
Red Hat 8.0 Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
Was openssl not upgraded beyond version 0.9.6b from 7.3 to 8.0?
I have several of these machines lying around, and I've always meant
to gut out the PCB/CPU/RAM inside and replace it with a really small
SBC (like the ones shown here). What's held me
back is interfacing with the Model 100's keyboard and LCD controller.
Has anybody done any work like this, or does anybody have advice to
impart about the task?
>Damn it, a university is not a trade school! Only a small amount of the time in classes (maybe 1/3?) is spent in the nominal field of study - the rest of the time is spent getting...
Retaliation at this point will be about as effective as a blindfolded man trying to kill a flea. The people responsible for this destruction are dead already; not much you can do about that.
But now that we know any US airplane can be used as an offensive weapon, capable of killing thousands of people, I offer these solutions:
* Install a remotely-activated self-destruct capability in every plane. Once it's been determined that a plane has been compromised, this option can be considered.
* Well, nobody's gonna fly on a plane with remote self-destruct installed, so here's another idea: have a remotely-activated fuel dump capability, so that an official on the ground can empty a plane's fuel once we know the plane is not under our control. Not only would it cripple the plane's flight radius, it'd also strip it of much of its explosive power.
Just some thoughts on this significant, nation-changing day.
...connecting wirelessly to a MSSQL server that seems to simply misplace records for the hell of it.
This is the second mention I've seen about SQL Server dropping records. Can somebody please elaborate on this bug, and/or point me to more information about it?
You buy the phone outright, with no preset plan (or credit check, or SSN/bdate divulgences), then pay for minutes as you need them using your credit card, for which you've already established respectable credit/identity. There seem to be less points of failure with such a system.
IANAS - I Am Not A Shareholder; I just like the company...
A lot of posts bring up security, so as somebody who actually worked
on an electronic medical record several years ago, here is one of the primary
problems with implementing security:
Docs (and other people with high opinions of themselves and their time)
don't want to have to type in their username/password everytime
they approach a machine (in the hallway, at the nurse's station, in the docs
lounge) to retrieve/update patient info. If they have to key this in all the
time, you will have a bunch of pissed off users who don't even use/like the
application.
With much hindsight, I realize the solution is some kind of security card
or pin containing a microchip that will authenticate the user via
RF transmissions. I think Micron makes these things. It's not a perfect
solution, but it will certainly go over better than having to key in junk
all the time. If anybody has implemented a system like this, I'd be
interested to hear what pros/cons you discovered once it was pressed into
service.
The burden of having safe and secure systems should be on those who write the software we all use. When somebody installs an OS (whether Windows or Unix-based) on a machine, that person should not have to configure the box every which way to Sunday to get it secure. It should be secure out of the box, 'cause we don't have all the time/patience in the world to tweak our boxes or all the money in the world to hire people who will do it for us.
OpenBSD, of course, is the model for this. Other software providers should follow suit. (Mandrake 7.0 is a step in the right direction.) Pretty soon we'll have to rely more heavily than ever on these software authors to make their products secure, because security issues are only going to get more and more complex as time goes by.
Some subtle benefits of doing CGI in Python, which I haven't seen discussed thus far, are:
* Source code protection. Sometimes I want to protect the details of my source code from prying eyes, such as those of green, over-eager techies who sometimes work for my clients. It's possible to hide the code for supporting class library and module files by putting only the cached, compiled versions of those files on the production web server. Specifically, these are the.pyc files that get created after you first import a module.
Your front-line CGI scripts that get referenced on the URL line won't be able to take advantage of this feature, but if you house most of your logic in those supporting files, you can pretty effectively seal up the source nice and tight.
* Easy templating using a specially formatted string (the template) and a dictionary or other mapped object (dictionaries are equivalent to associative arrays in Perl). Sample code:
(Of course, the my_html_code variable could have been populated by opening a separate template file.) This feature, to me, puts Python on equal footing with Perl's ability to interpolate variables nestled in strings, and certainly C's ability to print formatted strings with printf.
Uh, your comments were good, but the issues you cite affect Linux everywhere, not just in China. Non-technical users, irrespective their nationality, want the things you mention (fully-featured browser, comprehensive Office suite, ease-of-use, etc.). However, *technical* users -- here and in China -- will appreciate Linux for what it currently offers and seek to improve it for their own needs. We simply need to get the software in the right people's hands "over there," and I believe it will take off just as it has in the U.S./Europe.
My point in short: if Linux hasn't appealed to the masses here in the U.S., it's not going appeal to the masses over in China, either.
* Pulling down the big bucks (6 fig's if I worked full time, which I don't) as an independent contractor. * Working 80% from home to do development, 20% on-site to install stuff and hold hands with my users. * Work at my own pace on whatever schedule I choose, with the only criteria being that I pump out working stuff for people in a reasonable amount of time. * Control over what technologies I use on a project. Users are happy to let you choose what to use, especially when you tell them you're much more likely to achieve success with oss-product x than css-product y. More importantly, to ensure that my stuff works, I climb up on the backs of smart guys by reusing their open source code and objects (***Code Reusability*** should be getting a lot more mention on this thread!). * The choice to accept or decline projects, so I don't get myself in a real jam.
WDK, do you really see me having a better life in the world you envision? If you take every point above and picture it in a Marxist/Leninist/uniform/sameness-type work, these things just evaporate! The freedom I have simply goes away. I become a clock-puncher like everybody else, or the converse: every software developer gets to live the good life like myself, which I don't see happening all at once.
You might say I'm privileged to have these conditions. I do feel fortunate, but not particularly special (every couple months or so I learn that a friend or acquaintance of mine has negotiated themselves a similar set of circumstances). Thankfully I live in a socio-economic system that makes all this possible. And of course, I have to perform in order to make this happen as well: I do my work methodically, pay attention to the details, listen and respond with lightning speed to my users, and constantly seek out the latest and greatest bounty of code/objects the web has to offer. (Needless to say, I am very grateful to the entire open-source movement.) Well, you must have expected you'd get a response from well-fed capitalists (in the US, at least). Good luck on proving your ideological stance to others, but for now I just ain't buyin'.
Slashdot Mirror
The place I'm at runs IE 6.0. I think it's due to user inertia and resistance that it doesn't get switched over to Firefox. What I'd like to see is a version of Firefox that emulates the visual appearance and workings of the IE 6.0 interface (down to the title bar, icons, etc.), but under the hood and all the rendering is really being done by the latest FF. Updates would just go in automatically with no user intervention.
Seems simple enough, and there are some themes/skins for FF that purport to do this, but they don't go far enough, or aren't polished. They end up looking a little crufty (for instance, they don't get rid of the structure of the forward/back buttons in the latest FF).
If somebody came out with a seamless "sheep in wolf's clothing" solution for IE 6.0 -> FF, it would be a lot easier to get users to adopt it. Does that help wider FF adoption? No, but I think that's a separate issue from pure user "acceptance."
Perhaps we'd get some footage of what the so-called Minutemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Project) are up to. That might be enough to expose the group as a bunch of gun-toting racist yokels.
Do what my friends and I did... I set up a cgi script called CGIProxy (http://www.jmarshall.com/tools/cgiproxy/) on a secure Apache web server I have, and invited my friends to use it to do any web surfing they don't want logged at an ISP.
Of course, the traffic flowing off the final jumping off point (my web server) is being logged, but if enough people use it, that may obfuscate who is actually using the service. And if some jackbooted thugs show up to interrogate me about who's been using my 'service' or look at my logs (I don't keep logs on the script anyway), they will have their work cut out for them. I have nothing to lose taking on these fools (AG on down), and welcome the day I can push back on their idiocy.
Is search really the great big frontier to be conquered? Is there really any gold behind that rush? Man, what am I missing here?
I rarely use Google anymore for searching. Why waste time sifting through a bunch of garbage links when organized info with an excellent set of links awaits me at Wikipedia? A small handful of links (mlb.com for baseball feeds, Bomis for babes, cnn.com for 'real' news, aolchat app to talk to friends, expedia for travel, etc.) can keep one busy with their interests and pastimes for a LONG time.
Google search means something for people who are actively trying to extract info from the web: the intellectually adventurous, the technologically "elite." Outside of /. types, the AOLers, MSNers, and Yahoo!ers get a page of info-tainment barf whenever they log on, and are handed everything they need to waste their time online. It's the junk food that's specially tailored for the sweet spot of popular culture -- who's having whose baby, who won last night's game, etc. These are people whose lives don't revolve around computers, and for whom Google doesn't really mean all that much.
I'm getting around to my point, which is: who decided SEARCH was the holy grail of the internet? How did Micro$oft get so obsessed with the idea that SEARCH is the must-have feather in their cap? SEARCH is the app for finding the niches that aren't already covered by a mainstream website, for people who have the time to waste. Even Google has moved off search to produce apps for people who have better things to do with their leisure -- like getting comprehensive news digests, using state-of-the-art web-based email, and getting best-of-breed driving directions.
What a waste of time for Microsoft to try building a contraption that trolls the Internet sewer better than what's already out there. I don't see what's to be gained trying to refine a 10-year-old idea. They'd attract more attention in the real world building the world's best online casino, or coming up with (gasp!) something new.
Last weekend I pulled in the latest Python (2.4.1) for Winblows, the Ogre 3D engine binary , and PyOgre (http://www.ogre3d.org/index.php?option=com_remosi tory&Itemid=57&func=selectcat&cat=1).
This combo rocks fairly hard.
Run a 27 line Python script, and boom, you're looking at a working 3d engine. It's fast, too, probably because the heavy lifting is being done in the Ogre runtime binaries.
For developing and prototyping, there's no time wasted (re)compiling changes; tweak some Python and away you go. And there's no reason the code or scene objects can't be tweaked while the engine is running, perhaps by means of a some sort of IPC, whether it's via a telnet/socket-type connection, or an XML-RPC daemon process, or whatever. Some people have even worked up demo on-screen overlays akin to the Quake console.
I'm looking forward to the day I can interact with a 3D environment and manipulate 3D objects with the same immediacy I'm accustomed to manipulating data in the Python interactive prompt. Heck, I'd even learn Smalltalk if they plugged Ogre directly into something like Squeak. But for now, Python + Ogre (PyOgre) seems to show a lot of promise.
Damn, who could have guessed that the most laughable concept from "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" -- the hero breaks Martian rocks apart to get breathable air -- is practically true?
http://imdb.com/title/tt0058530/
Course, the reality is, the real rocks are gonna smell like cow manure.
I'll pass, thanks.
Your points are excellent, and the brief aside you had about the Chinese considering sacrificing some individuals for the betterment of the larger group struck me especially.
What if, the Chinese altered their One Child Per Couple policy, such that, if a couple exceeded the one child they're permitted, the couple could opt that their "extra" children be sent into space for colonizing another world, instead of automatically being killed?
Perhaps, a couple might find both options repugnant, but at least the colonization option would allow a couple's verboten offspring the chance to generate some value for themselves and for the community at large. And they might consider the colonization option slightly more ethically palatable.
Was openssl not upgraded beyond version 0.9.6b from 7.3 to 8.0?
I have several of these machines lying around, and I've always meant
to gut out the PCB/CPU/RAM inside and replace it with a really small
SBC (like the ones shown here). What's held me
back is interfacing with the Model 100's keyboard and LCD controller.
Has anybody done any work like this, or does anybody have advice to
impart about the task?
>Damn it, a university is not a trade school! Only a small amount of the time in classes (maybe 1/3?) is spent in the nominal field of study - the rest of the time is spent getting...
PISS DRUNK.
http://finance.yahoo.com/d/quotes.csv?s=MSFT+ORCL+ INTC&f=sl1d1t1c1ohgv&e=.csv
6 3. 63,62.08,32257100
1 4. 08,13.40,46623900
2 6. 50,25.55,45507200
...will give you a nice comma-sepped response:
"MSFT",62.20,"10/26/2001","3:00PM",-0.36,62.32,
"ORCL",13.58,"10/26/2001","3:00PM",-0.37,13.71,
"INTC",25.86,"10/26/2001","3:00PM",-0.24,26.01,
Why would you endure HTML-parsing hell when Yahoo provides this interface?
Happy Halloween,
G. Sherman
Retaliation at this point will be about as effective as a blindfolded man trying to kill a flea. The people responsible for this destruction are dead already; not much you can do about that.
But now that we know any US airplane can be used as an offensive weapon, capable of killing thousands of people, I offer these solutions:
* Install a remotely-activated self-destruct capability in every plane. Once it's been determined that a plane has been compromised, this option can be considered.
* Well, nobody's gonna fly on a plane with remote self-destruct installed, so here's another idea: have a remotely-activated fuel dump capability, so that an official on the ground can empty a plane's fuel once we know the plane is not under our control. Not only would it cripple the plane's flight radius, it'd also strip it of much of its explosive power.
Just some thoughts on this significant, nation-changing day.
This is the second mention I've seen about SQL Server dropping records. Can somebody please elaborate on this bug, and/or point me to more information about it?
Thanks,
G. Sherman
http://www.tracfone.com
You buy the phone outright, with no preset plan (or credit check,
or SSN/bdate divulgences), then pay for minutes as you need them
using your credit card, for which you've already established
respectable credit/identity. There seem to be less points of failure
with such a system.
IANAS - I Am Not A Shareholder; I just like the company...
Enjoyable to write Python code?
Yes -- it's clean and explicit, which means your eyes won't glaze over when you revisit it a week/month/year hence.
A lot of posts bring up security, so as somebody who actually worked
on an electronic medical record several years ago, here is one of the primary
problems with implementing security:
Docs (and other people with high opinions of themselves and their time)
don't want to have to type in their username/password everytime
they approach a machine (in the hallway, at the nurse's station, in the docs
lounge) to retrieve/update patient info. If they have to key this in all the
time, you will have a bunch of pissed off users who don't even use/like the
application.
With much hindsight, I realize the solution is some kind of security card
or pin containing a microchip that will authenticate the user via
RF transmissions. I think Micron makes these things. It's not a perfect
solution, but it will certainly go over better than having to key in junk
all the time. If anybody has implemented a system like this, I'd be
interested to hear what pros/cons you discovered once it was pressed into
service.
Uh, FYI -- latest OpenBSD 2.8 is 2 CDs.
http://www.openbsd.org/items.html#28
Cheers,
G. Sherman
#! /bin/sh
/usr/src
/ mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz
/dev/null
/usr/src/package/
cd
rm -rf package/
wget -q http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest
tar -xvzf mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz >
rm -f mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz
echo "Finished...!"
if [ "$1" = "-run" ]; then
echo "Booting Mozilla...!"
moz &
fi
here's that "moz" script:
#!/bin/sh
cd
./mozilla
Next we'll hear he's been tapped to direct some Hollywood flick...
The burden of having safe and secure systems should be on those who write the software we all use. When somebody installs an OS (whether Windows or Unix-based) on a machine, that person should not have to configure the box every which way to Sunday to get it secure. It should be secure out of the box, 'cause we don't have all the time/patience in the world to tweak our boxes or all the money in the world to hire people who will do it for us.
OpenBSD, of course, is the model for this. Other software providers should follow suit. (Mandrake 7.0 is a step in the right direction.) Pretty soon we'll have to rely more heavily than ever on these software authors to make their products secure, because security issues are only going to get more and more complex as time goes by.
Some subtle benefits of doing CGI in Python, which I haven't seen discussed thus far, are:
.pyc files that get created after you first import a module.
* Source code protection. Sometimes I want to protect the details of my source code from prying eyes, such as those of green, over-eager techies who sometimes work for my clients. It's possible to hide the code for supporting class library and module files by putting only the cached, compiled versions of those files on the production web server. Specifically, these are the
Your front-line CGI scripts that get referenced on the URL line won't be able to take advantage of this feature, but if you house most of your logic in those supporting files, you can pretty effectively seal up the source nice and tight.
* Easy templating using a specially formatted string (the template) and a dictionary or other mapped object (dictionaries are equivalent to associative arrays in Perl). Sample code:
my_html_code = """<HTML><BODY>Hey %(who)s, %(adj)s!</BODY></HTML>"""
my_dict = {'who': 'there', 'adj': 'good-looking'}
print my_html_code % my_dict
<HTML><BODY>Hey there, good-looking!</BODY></HTML>
(Of course, the my_html_code variable could have been populated by opening a separate template file.) This feature, to me, puts Python on equal footing with Perl's ability to interpolate variables nestled in strings, and certainly C's ability to print formatted strings with printf.
Yours,
G. Sherman
Uh, your comments were good, but the issues you cite affect Linux everywhere, not just in China. Non-technical users, irrespective their nationality, want the things you mention (fully-featured browser, comprehensive Office suite, ease-of-use, etc.). However, *technical* users -- here and in China -- will appreciate Linux for what it currently offers and seek to improve it for their own needs. We simply need to get the software in the right people's hands "over there," and I believe it will take off just as it has in the U.S./Europe.
My point in short: if Linux hasn't appealed to the masses here in the U.S., it's not going appeal to the masses over in China, either.
Let's see...
* Pulling down the big bucks (6 fig's if I worked full time, which I don't) as an independent contractor.
* Working 80% from home to do development, 20% on-site to install stuff and hold hands with my users.
* Work at my own pace on whatever schedule I choose, with the only criteria being that I pump out working stuff for people in a reasonable amount of time.
* Control over what technologies I use on a project. Users are happy to let you choose what to use, especially when you tell them you're much more likely to achieve success with oss-product x than css-product y. More importantly, to ensure that my stuff works, I climb up on the backs of smart guys by reusing their open source code and objects (***Code Reusability*** should be getting a lot more mention on this thread!).
* The choice to accept or decline projects, so I don't get myself in a real jam.
WDK, do you really see me having a better life in the world you envision? If you take every point above and picture it in a Marxist/Leninist/uniform/sameness-type work, these things just evaporate! The freedom I have simply goes away. I become a clock-puncher like everybody else, or the converse: every software developer gets to live the good life like myself, which I don't see happening all at once.
You might say I'm privileged to have these conditions. I do feel fortunate, but not particularly special (every couple months or so I learn that a friend or acquaintance of mine has negotiated themselves a similar set of circumstances). Thankfully I live in a socio-economic system that makes all this possible. And of course, I have to perform in order to make this happen as well: I do my work methodically, pay attention to the details, listen and respond with lightning speed to my users, and constantly seek out the latest and greatest bounty of code/objects the web has to offer. (Needless to say, I am very grateful to the entire open-source movement.)
Well, you must have expected you'd get a response from well-fed capitalists (in the US, at least). Good luck on proving your ideological stance to others, but for now I just ain't buyin'.
Yours,
GSherman